Talk:Artefill

sales catalog
This article reads like it was written by a sales/PR person from artefill.
 * no sources except official fda article.
 * No internal wiki links.
 * No pointers to alternatives.
 * The "side effect" described in the article are less critical than in the official http://www.artefill.com/pdf_download/IFU_artefill2.pdf instuctions for use.
 * 13:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

artefill problem
the microspheres are plastic and have no available blood supply to deliver antibiotics to the area should a bacterial infection develop around the material. the body walls-off the area, causing inflamation and lumps. the only way to resolve this is surgical removal of the material. good injection practice requires the material is evenly distributed, not into 'lakes',and in the deep dermal plane. surgeons advise injection into different planes of dermis, and use of especially small amounts of the material to minimize potential problems.107.196.30.155 (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

PMMA statement
The following statement is both irrelevant and inaccurate:

Medical grade PMMA has been used for decades (50+ years) in a variety of medical applications including intraocular lenses to treat cataracts, artificial joints, etc.


 * Irrelevant: The Artefill is injected into the skin, and the PMMA material ends up in direct contact with cellular component of human tissue. This is not the case for the two PMMA examples given. In the eye as well as in the bone and around joints, most of the PMMA surfaces are covered by extracellular material (aqueous humor or calcium-collagen matrix) and has significantly less contact with cellular component of tissue. One cannot assume safety of the material purely based on the fact that it had been implanted in other compartments of the body.

For an example of this type of fallacy, consider the following statements:

1. Many people have eaten a hamburger, which ended up in the stomach, and did not die. 2. Hamburger in the stomach is safe. 3. Therefore, a hamburger elsewhere in the body is safe, too.

Statements 1 and 2 are factual. Statement 3 is not. This is because Statement 3 relies on the implicit assumption that all body compartments are equal, which is the problem with the statement under scrutiny. It is a bad scientific mind that assumes, if substance A is safe in the eye or in the joint, it must be safe for skin.


 * Inaccurate: PMMA had been used in the past for IOL and artificial joints, is no longer used widely. It has been replaced by other materials with superior optical and biomechanical properties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tofoo (talk • contribs) 05:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)